CopyCited 161 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 154 Fla. 554, 1944 Fla. LEXIS 760
4663, par. 5, Clause 1, Comp. Gen. Stats., Section
95.10, sub-section 5, Fla. Stats. 1941, applies to
CopyCited 77 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 516, 1988 Fla. LEXIS 957, 1988 WL 93706
....11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1979), Florida's five year limitations period governing contracts, applied to this case. The district court reasoned that because the accident occurred in Florida the instant cause of action arose in this state and hence section 95.10, Florida Statutes, *295 Florida's borrowing statute, was not applicable....
...ations period. Accordingly, we quash the decision of the district court below. We remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. OVERTON, McDONALD, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: "When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall...
CopyCited 58 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 10275
...ct or tort, must be brought within two years of the date on which the cause of action for arose. The district court reasoned that Virginia law applied because Florida adheres to the doctrine of lex loci delicti and under Florida's borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985), the causes of action "arose" in Virginia where the crash and injuries occurred....
CopyCited 41 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Because Florida is the forum in this case, the appropriate statute of limitation will be found in Chapter 95, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., entitled "Limitations of Actions; Adverse Possession." The chapter contains two possibly applicable provisions, Sections
95.11 and
95.10....
...der this section, the complaint was timely; Petitioner had four years in which to commence the tort action and three in which to bring the action sounding in contract. Her complaint was filed less than two years after the accident. According to F.S. Section 95.10, F.S.A., however, there are times when Florida courts will not apply a Florida statute of limitation, but instead will "borrow" the statute of limitation of another jurisdiction....
...cluded Petitioner's cause of action could not be maintained in this state. The action arose in one of two states: Florida, where the ticket was purchased and the trip commenced, or Tennessee, where the accident occurred. If it arose in Florida, F.S. Section 95.10, F.S.A., is not applicable and Petitioner's cause can be maintained since it was begun within the period set forth in F.S....
...The last act in this case necessary to establish liability occurred at the time of the accident in Tennessee. Because the tort causes of action arose in Tennessee, and because they are barred under the statute of limitations of that state, Florida law as enunciated in F.S. Section 95.10, F.S.A., requires Florida courts to conclude the tort claims are barred in this state....
...Painter Fertilizer Co., supra at 750. (Emphasis supplied.) The contract in the instant case was completed in Florida with the purchase of the bus ticket. It is in this State, therefore, that the cause of action sounding in contract arose. Because it arose in Florida, F.S. Section 95.10, F.S.A., is not applicable; F.S....
CopyCited 37 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1999 WL 1072973
...We find that the limitations period in this case is controlled by our recent decision in Merkle v. Robinson,
737 So.2d 540 (Fla.1999). In Robinson, we answered a certified question and held that the "significant relationship" test for use in applying section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1997) (borrowing statute), also applies to the determination of whether to apply Florida's statute of limitations, section
95.11, Florida Statutes (1997), or the limitations period of another jurisdiction....
CopyCited 37 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 381, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 26202
...Louisiana limitations rules controlled because Florida’s conflict of laws statute provided that When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, ... and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state. *848 Fla.Stat. § 95.10....
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 396
...Pursuant to section
25.031, Florida Statutes (1985), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.150, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has certified to this Court the following question: For the purpose of applying Florida's limitation of actions "borrowing" statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. §
95.10 (West 1982), is the determination whether a cause of action for theft of trade secrets has arisen in a state other than Florida to be made solely with reference to the state in which the "last act necessary to establish liability" occurred, Colhoun v....
...The facts which precipitated this lawsuit are set forth in the opinion of the court of appeals. Because we see no reason to treat an action for theft of trade secrets differently than other tort actions, we shall answer the question as if it related to any action arising in tort. Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985), the so-called borrowing statute, reads as follows: Causes of action arising out of the state....
CopyCited 30 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1988 WL 23408
...Celotex Corp.,
466 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), consolidated with petitions to review Nance v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.,
466 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and Colon v. Celotex Corp.,
465 So.2d 1332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). These cases involve the application of section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), Florida's borrowing statute, to asbestosis claims....
...maintained in Florida because Florida postpones accrual until discovery?
466 So.2d at 1107. We have jurisdiction over all three cases. See art. V, § 3(b)(4) and (3), Fla. Const. We answer the question in the negative. The Florida borrowing statute, section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), reads as follows: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state....
...e considered the application of our borrowing statute in Bates v. Cook, Inc.,
509 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1987). In Bates, we addressed the following question: For the purpose of applying Florida's limitation of actions "borrowing" statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. §
95.10 (West 1982), is the determination ......
...We simply hold that the significant relationships test should be employed to decide in which state the cause of action "arose." The borrowing statute will only come into play if it is determined that the cause of action arose in another state.
509 So.2d at 1114-15. In view of our Bates decision, the application of section
95.10 is now clearly dependent on whether there are significant relationships which establish that the cause of action arose in another state....
...of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. See Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co.,
389 So.2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1980). We will address the application of section
95.10 to the Meehan, Nance, and Colon cases separately, because each has distinguishing aspects relating to the certified question, as well as differences in the application of the significant relationships test....
...Carmella Meehan, as personal representative of the estate of her late husband, filed this suit in 1979. The trial court entered final summary judgment for Celotex in 1981 on grounds that Meehan's claim was barred by the New York statute of limitations as borrowed under section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
265 So.2d 18 (Fla. *145 1972); Farris & Co. v. William Schluderberg, T.J. Kurdle Co.,
141 Fla. 462,
193 So. 429 (1940); Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.,
432 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review denied,
446 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1984)). In construing section
95.10, the district court reasoned that a cause of action in tort arises in the jurisdiction where the last act necessary to establish liability occurred, and since the accrual of a cause of action must coincide with the aggrieved party's dis...
...Chief Judge Schwartz dissented, stating: "The court's decision has resuscitated an action which has been barred for over thirty years in New York, where the defendants' allegedly wrongful acts took place."
466 So.2d at 1105-06. He reasoned that "to vindicate the very basis of section
95.10 we must look to the law of the place where the wrongful act occurred and, under that law, the limitations period was simultaneously initiated." Id....
...f action in Florida, where the wrongful act occurred, because the injury was discovered in Tennessee (Colon). In view of Bates, it is the significant relationship with the states involved that is the critical factor in determining the application of section 95.10. Where the injury is discovered is only one factor to be considered, not the determining factor. The legislative purpose of section 95.10 is to not allow a longer statute of limitations in Florida than is provided in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose....
...s state. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145(2) (1971). We find these circumstances establish a significant relationship with New York and, consequently, under the law of New York at the time of the district court of appeal decision, section 95.10 barred the action in Florida....
...Following Nance's death later that year, the personal representative of his estate was substituted as a party plaintiff and filed an amended complaint for wrongful death. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants based on the Virginia statute of limitations as applied by virtue of section 95.10....
...ancer was diagnosed. The limited record in Nance appears to establish that the significant relationships were with the State of Virginia, with the exception of the diagnosis of asbestosis. If the only relationship with Florida is the diagnosis, then section 95.10 bars Nance's cause of action in this state....
...e fact that his injury arose in Florida. The district court of appeal held that an injury's diagnosis and discovery in another state binds the injured party to the foreign state's statute of limitations. We find that is not the intent and purpose of section 95.10. If we accepted the district court's analysis of section 95.10, a potential plaintiff suffering from a latent disease would always be required to comply with the statute of limitations period in the state where he or she received medical diagnosis of the injury. In other words, the foreign state's limitation period would be applied without regard to the significant relationships test. We further find the phrase "when the cause of action arose in another state" in section 95.10 precludes the application of the statute in these circumstances because the significant relationships with Florida have been clearly established....
CopyCited 30 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...Additionally, the trial court found that the holding of Kent v. Connecticut Bank and Trust Co.,
386 So.2d 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), did not operate to nullify the defense of absolute judicial privilege with respect to Count VI, and that the one-year New York Statute of Limitations, CPLR Section 215, and Section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1981) barred Counts IV and VI....
...of procedure. Colhoun v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
265 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1972); Brown v. Case,
80 Fla. 703,
86 So. 684 (1920); McElmoyle v. Cohen, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 312,
10 L.Ed. 177 (U.S. 1839). Florida law governing limitations of actions includes *1330 Section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1981): When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state....
...cond) of Conflict of Laws § 145, did the cause of action arise in New York, where publication occurred, or in Florida, which has the most significant relationship? Although Bishop adopts a conflicts rule which governs choice of substantive law, and Section 95.10 is a procedural statute, nonetheless, appellant asserts that Florida substantive law, including its choice of law rule, governs the determination of where the cause of action arose. If the cause of action arose in Florida, then Section 95.10 does not apply, and appellant timely asserted his claim in Count IV....
...at 685, It is clear that the Legislature intended to give a debtor against whom a cause of action accrued in another state or territory, or in a foreign country, the benefit of statutes of limitations of those jurisdictions if they were shorter than that of this state. The Legislature has not amended Section 95.10 since the Supreme Court opinion in Bishop....
...led upon to refer to it only three times... . We are convinced that the clarity of its language and the certainty of its command simply left no room for litigation. Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corp.,
401 F.2d 593, 595 (5th Cir.1968). The language of Section
95.10 is as clear today as it was in 1968 or in 1872....
...We decline to "give a strained construction to evade the effect" of the statute in the absence of a statement of legislative will or a ruling by our Supreme Court. We hold that the cause of action stated in Count IV of appellant's defamation complaint is barred by operation of Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1981) and CPLR Section 215, the New York Statute of Limitations....
CopyCited 23 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1999 WL 506972
...PER CURIAM. We have for review a decision asking the following certified question of great public importance: DOES THE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TEST ADOPTED IN BATES V. COOK,
509 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA'S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION
95.10, FLORIDA STATUTES, ALSO APPLY TO CASES INVOLVING FLORIDA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SECTION
95.11, FLORIDA STATUTES? Robinson v....
...2d DCA 1997). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We rephrase the question to read as follows: DOES THE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TEST ADOPTED IN BATES V. COOK,
509 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA'S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION
95.10, FLORIDA STATUTES, ALSO APPLY TO CASES WHERE THE CLAIM IS TIME-BARRED UNDER FLORIDA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SECTION
95.11, FLORIDA STATUTES? We answer the rephrased question in the affirmative....
...It is my view that the majority and the district court misread Bates v. Cook,
509 So.2d 1112, 1114-15 (Fla.1987), and reach a conclusion which is contrary to the longstanding precedent of this Court, contrary to the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws, section 142 (Supp.1989), and which renders meaningless section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1997). In Bates, the issue which was before the Court was the applicability of the borrowing statute, which is section
95.10....
...be barred where it arose. Again, in respect to this rule, Mr. Reese's comment in the article referenced in Bates was, "The rule that a court will apply its own shorter statute of limitations remains good law." Moreover, the majority decision renders section 95.10 meaningless. It is patent that the reason that section 95.10 exists is to alter the long-standing precedent from this Court that the Florida statute of limitations applies to actions brought in Florida....
...As noted, the statute alters this rule only if the statute in the place where the action arose bars the action. If Florida's common law was that it would simply look to the place where the action arose and apply that place's statute of limitations to an action filed in Florida, then section 95.10 would be completely unnecessary....
...or should have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence; however, in no event shall the action be commenced later than 4 years from the date of the incident or occurrence out of which the cause of action accrued. [5] The borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), provides: "When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall...
...ot retroactive and is not available to a plaintiff in a cause of action arising from acts occurring prior to its effective date of June 7, 1978. The alleged medical malpractice occurred during Carrie Hargis Robinson's birth on May 12, 1977. [12] See § 95.10, Fla....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8803, 2000 WL 966037
...ns nor its limitation upon product liability would trump the law of Florida as the place of injury. Both parties agree that Florida applies the "significant relationship" test concerning conflict of laws in tort cases. See Bishop,
389 So.2d at 1001; §
95.10, Fla....
...The Applicable Statute of Limitations. Concerning the applicable statute of limitations, the significant relationships support use of Florida's statute of limitations. [3] This claim did not "arise" in New Jersey for purposes of our borrowing statute. See § 95.10, Fla....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 333
...The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants on the stated ground that: "It is undisputed that the Decedent, CHARLES FRANCIS MEEHAN, was exposed to asbestos products only at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, from 1942 through 1945. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 95.10 of the Florida Statutes this Court applies the appropriate statute of limitations under the laws of the State of New York and finds that this action is barred by those statutes of limitations [sic]." This appeal followed. We reverse. Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), referred to in the trial court's judgment, is commonly known as a borrowing statute....
...Indeed, in the face of this case law, assumed to be known by the legislature, see Migliore v. Crown Liquors of Broward, Inc.,
448 So.2d 978 (Fla. 1984); Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co.,
450 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the legislature, in 1975, revised Chapter 95, including Section
95.10, and not only made no effort to distinguish between these terms, but instead reinforced their equation by defining accrue as occurring "when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs", §
95.031(1), Fla....
...of Florida and that of the competing jurisdiction differ as to what the "last act" is. In making that choice of law determination, see Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co.,
389 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1980), I believe that to vindicate the very basis of section
95.10 we must look to the law of the place where the wrongful act occurred and, under that law, the limitations period was simultaneously initiated....
...ommence to run until the cause of action *1107 accrues. A cause of action does not accrue until someone has been damaged by the acts complained of.
461 So.2d at 1352. This language plainly permits the conclusion that a cause of action "arises" under section
95.10 at some time that is, when the tortious act takes place prior to when it "accrues" for limitations purposes at the point that damages are sustained or discovered....
...Florida statute of limitations concept, dealing with the accrual of a cause of action, so as to breathe life into a foreign cause of action which has long been moribund under the statute of limitations of the state where the tort was committed. But section 95.10 makes the New York, not the Florida, statute of limitations determinative....
...Juluis Dierck Equipment Co., 52 A.D.2d 463, 384 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976); E. Scoles and P. Hay, Conflict of Laws (1982); R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws (2d ed. 1980). However, at least one Florida court has specifically rejected the application of the significant relationship test to Section 95.10....
...Consistency of law within a district is essential to avoid unnecessary and costly litigation. We conclude that the district court judges, through their opinions, will adopt principles to ensure this result. (footnote omitted)."
416 So.2d at 1128. [1] Section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1335013
...The reasoning of the trial judge here, that Tennessee law did not have a comparable offer of judgment statute, so no attorney's fees could be awarded, should be affirmed. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] Florida's borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1999), provides that a cause of action will be barred in this state if it is barred in the state where it arose "because of lapse of time." [2] Because the underlying cause of action in this case accrued in 1992, the 1991 offer of judgment statute applies....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21060
...Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
265 So.2d 18, 20 (Fla.1972); Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.,
432 So.2d 1323, 1329 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983), pet. for rev. den.,
446 So.2d 99 (Fla.1984). Under Florida law, however, foreign statutes of limitations are borrowed in certain situations. Florida Statutes §
95.10 provides: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state. Fla.Stat. §
95.10 (1982) (§
95.10). Section
95.10 bars actions brought in Florida which would have been time-barred if commenced at the same time in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose. See Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corporation,
401 F.2d 593, 596 (5th Cir.1968). Thus, the critical issue in determining which statute of limitations to apply under §
95.10 is ascertaining where the cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets arose. Initially, the Court must decide which conflict of laws standard to apply in determining where a cause of action arises under §
95.10....
...le of conflicts of law, i.e. the law of the place of the wrong was applied. The parties in this case agree that the recently adopted "most significant relationships" test should be applied to determine where the cause of action arose for purposes of §
95.10. However, in Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.,
432 So.2d at 1329-31, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeals squarely faced the question of whether a cause of action arises for purposes of §
95.10 in the state with the most significant relationship or in the state where the wrong occurred....
...The claim in question was time-barred under New York law, but not Florida law. The Pledger court acknowledged that the Bishop decision adopted the significant relationships conflict of laws rule for choice of substantive law, but distinguished Bishop on the grounds that § 95.10 pertains to statutes of limitations and is thus a procedural statute. Noting that the legislative purpose of § 95.10 is to require vigilance and that the Florida legislature has given no indication that the Bishop test should be applied to determine when a cause of action arises under § 95.10, the court in Pledger stated: The language of Restatement (Second) § 145, as adopted in Bishop, clearly refers to rights and liabilities, not to remedies....
...We decline to "give a strained construction to evade the effect" of the statute in the absence of a statement of legislative will or a ruling by our Supreme Court. We hold that the cause of action stated in Count IV of Appellant's defamation complaint is barred by operation of Section
95.10 Florida Statutes *675 (1981) and CPLR Section 215, the New York Statute of Limitations. Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.,
432 So.2d at 1330. Thus, Florida courts continue to apply the rule of lex loci delicti to determine when a cause of a action arises for purposes of §
95.10....
...must be taken to reflect a valid interpretation of state law." Bradbury v. Wainwright,
718 F.2d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Therefore, the conflict of laws standard for determining where a cause of action arose for purposes of §
95.10 is the rule of lex loci delicti. Having decided that Florida law dictates the application under §
95.10 of lex loci delicti, the Court must determine the appropriate interpretation of the lex loci delicti rule in this case. The phrase lex loci delicti has been variously construed under §
95.10 to require application of the law of the place of injury, Bishop v....
...ed. Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corporation,
401 F.2d at 596; Griffin v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company,
307 F.Supp. 741,742 (S.D.Fla.1969). In Westerman v. Sears, Roebuck and Company,
577 F.2d 873, 878 (5th Cir.1978), a case not decided under §
95.10, the Fifth Circuit construed lex loci delicti under Florida law as "the place where defendant's conduct causes the injurious effect." All of these cases except Pledger involved personal injuries and applied the law of the place where the plaintiff suffered the physical injury....
...ntroducer sets. Although a limited amount of defendant's use of the trade secrets in further developing their introducer sets arguably took place in New Jersey, the primary locus of defendant's wrongful use was in Indiana. Therefore, for purposes of § 95.10 the cause of action arose in Indiana where the wrong occurred, and the Indiana statute of limitations should be applied under § 95.10....
...ationship to the occurrence and the parties. Thus, under the Restatement significant relationships test Indiana law should be applied in this case. (b) Indiana law The Court has determined that an Indiana statute of limitations must be applied under § 95.10. The test in ascertaining if this action is barred by Indiana's statute of limitations under § 95.10 is whether or not the action could have been maintained in Indiana at the time the suit was commenced in Florida....
...rowing statute would not require that Indiana courts look to the statute of limitations in the state where the cause of action arose. Thus, this Court need not consider whether or not Florida courts when applying Indiana statutes of limitation under § 95.10, would apply the Indiana borrowing statute, and, if so, whether or not the Indiana courts would view the cause of action in this dispute as having arisen in Florida....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1028
...Central originally sought to rely on a New Jersey statute. However, it is well established that the forum state's statute of limitations is generally applicable. Brown v. Case,
80 Fla. 703,
86 So. 684 (1920); 12 Am.Jur.2d Bills and Notes § 1039 (1964); 11 Am.Jur.2d Bills and Notes § 99 (1963). Section
95.10, Florida Statutes, which provides an exception to this general rule, is not applicable....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 23521, 1991 WL 186529
...817 ,
82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). As noted previously, if the claim arose in another state and the time for filing suit has expired under the law of that state, the action is barred in Florida by reason of Florida’s “borrowing statute.” Fla.Stat. Ann. §
95.10 (West 1982)....
...The injury was sustained in December, 1987, and this suit was filed in October, 1989. Hence, this action cannot be “maintained in” Florida in as much as California's “law[] forbid[s] the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time.” Fla. Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982). For the foregoing reasons the district court’s order granting Koch’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED. 1 . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982) commonly known as Florida’s borrowing statute is entitled Causes of action arising out of the state provides: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its l...
CopyCited 13 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...instrument in writing (as to which the statute provides a period of three years), the statute of limitations ran against the claim of the plaintiffs no later than the year 1947, ten years before this action was actually filed by the plaintiffs. See Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1178, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8688, 1989 WL 85927
...The statute provides as follows: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state. Fla.Stat. § 95.10 (1987)....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 672145
...Oh has purposefully directed his activities at Florida residents, and has not presented any compelling evidence demonstrating that other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.
471 U.S. at 477,
105 S.Ct. 2174. IV. Florida Law Applies Section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1997), the borrowing statute, states: "When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of...
...orida citizen's constitutionally *1080 guaranteed access to the courts"). Mrs. Dean has a justifiable expectation that Florida will provide her access to its courts under these circumstances. Accordingly, the cause of action arose in Florida so that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1997)(the borrowing statute used by the trial court to determine that the Alabama statute of limitations barred this action against Dr....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 4840
...il June of 1965. It then alleges that the cause of action "arose in the State of California and by the laws of the State of California an action thereon cannot be maintained against defendant by the reason of the lapse of time." See Fla. Stat. 1963, § 95.10 F.S.A....
...The appellant's second point requires a consideration of three separate sections of the Florida statutes. In Florida, the statute *10 of limitations on promissory notes which are not under seal is five years. See Fla. Stat. 1963, §
95.11(3), F.S.A. The Florida "borrowing statute" is section
95.10, Fla....
...determining whether the trial judge correctly applied the statute of limitations under the facts of this case, we begin with the rule that the statute of limitations to be applied is that of the forum. Brown v. Case,
80 Fla. 703,
86 So. 684 (1920). Section
95.10, Fla....
...ility of an immediate remedy in that state, but this does not mean that no cause of action accrued in that state. [2] We hold that the cause of action accrued at the place of performance Florida. Therefore, the borrowing statute, Fla. Stat. 1963, § 95.10, F.S.A., is not applicable because the cause of action did not arise in another state....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 22336
...When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state. 6 Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 95.10....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15566, 2002 WL 31396460
...gnition of other states' courts' judgments than would otherwise occur. One possible adverse result might be that an out-of-state judgment is given greater effect than if sought to be enforced in the original forum. To guard against that eventuality, section 95.10, Florida Statutes, provides: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 121792
...ase argues that registration in Florida is barred under section
95.11(2)(a) which requires that an action "on a judgment or decree of ... any court of ... any other state" be brought within 5 years. Section
95.11(2)(a) is, of course, associated with section
95.10, which bars causes of action arising in another state if they are time-barred in the state in which they arose....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4562, 1989 WL 23787
...Cook, Inc.,
791 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir.1986), which was whether the “last act” or “significant relationships” test controlled the determination of where a cause of action arose for purposes of applying Florida’s “borrowing” statute for the limitation of actions, Fla.Stat.Ann. §
95.10....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 716835
...ALTENBERND, Judge. Mohamed Mezroub appeals the trial court's final order dismissing his personal injury lawsuit on the ground that it is barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court reluctantly dismissed the action because it concluded that section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1993), required a Florida court to borrow a Georgia statute of limitations for use in a lawsuit involving an automobile accident occurring in Georgia....
...§ 9-3-33 (1993). The initial complaint did not allege the parties' contacts with Florida. The trial court allowed Mr. Mezroub to amend his complaint to allege all of the above-described facts, and then dismissed the complaint with prejudice on the basis of section 95.10, which states: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action be cause of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state. Section 95.10 was first enacted in 1872 and was last amended in 1974....
...aw by locating the territory in which the claim "arose" or "accrued." See 86 C.J.S. Torts § 27 (1997). For example, in Beasley v. Fairchild Hiller Corp.,
401 F.2d 593 (5th Cir.1968), the court borrowed a Louisiana statute of limitations pursuant to section
95.10 to bar a products liability action....
...Cook, Inc.,
509 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1987), the supreme court expressly held that the significant relationship test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, which was described in Bishop, should be used to determine where a cause of action arises for purposes of section
95.10: Our ruling does not do violence to Florida's borrowing statute....
...issue, when one state is both the residence and *566 place of relationship for all parties, these contacts are far more important than the place of injury. [5] As the supreme court observed in Celotex Corp. v. Meehan,
523 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla.1988), section
95.10 is intended to prevent forum shopping....
...import or "borrow" foreign policies or attitudes about the timeliness of litigation. [6] Applying the principles in section 6 in light of the above-mentioned con tacts is not a mechanical task. There is no clear statutory choice-of-law directive in section 95.10, as interpreted in Bates, that would invoke section 6(1)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1109580
...Once domesticated, a foreign judgment will be effective for a period no longer than the original forum's statute of limitations or twenty years, whichever comes first. See N.Y. Dep't of Taxation v. Patafio, Jr.,
829 So.2d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see also §
95.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2002); §
95.10, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 32259
...which the cause of action accrues. Va.Code § 8.01-243; Tyler v. R.R. Street & Co.,
322 F.Supp. 541, 543 (E.D.Va.1971). It reasoned that the Virginia statute of *1281 limitations applied because under Floridas “borrowing statute,” Fla.Stat.Ann. §
95.10, the causes of action “arose” in Virginia, where the crash and injuries occurred....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 125603
...703,
86 So. 684 (1920), which holds that in the absence of a statute to the contrary, suits must be brought within the period prescribed by the law of the state where the suit is instituted. In Bates the question was whether the borrowing statute, section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1985), [1] bars actions brought in Florida which arise outside the State of Florida and which are time-barred in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose....
...e-barred by Florida's limiting statutes, the borrowing statute is inapplicable. In that case, there is no need to address the question whether *272 the cause of action is also time-barred in the state or territory where it arose. AFFIRMED. NOTES [1] Section 95.10 causes of action arising out of the state: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and the laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 985
...r initial inquiry must be whether the decedent's personal injuries, our initial inquiry must be whether the decedent's personal injury action would have been barred during his life. See also Hudson v. Keene Corp.,
445 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1979), which is commonly referred to as the borrowing statute, provides: When the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance...
...t to a cause of action. Meehan; see also City of Miami v. Brooks,
70 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1954). If the plaintiff knew or should have known of his right to a cause of action in Florida, then the Florida limitations provision applies; if in Virginia, then section
95.10 operates and the Virginia statute governs....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 199935
...to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence. After hearing arguments of the parties and receiving written memoranda, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees. Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1989) provides that: When the cause of action arose in another state ......
...est should be employed to decide in which state the cause of action "arose." The borrowing statute would only come into play if it was determined that the cause of action arose in another state. Bates at 1114-15. In view of Bates, the application of section 95.10 is now clearly dependent on whether there are significant relationships which establish that the cause of action arose in another state....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...Jenkins of Marlow, Shofi, Smith, Hennen, Smith & Slother, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Mt. Vernon Fire Ins. Co. PER CURIAM. We adopt the rationale of Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc.,
432 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), petition for review denied,
446 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1984), insofar as it pertains to section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1981)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 577722
...The oral agreement was entered into in Clearwater, Florida. The defendant, an Indiana corporation, removed the action to federal district court and moved for summary judgment on the ground that Indiana's statute of limitations had expired. The defendant relied on Florida's borrowing statute, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1985)....
...The court abandoned the conventional practice of justifying the use of a different analysis for making conflict of law determinations involving statutes of limitation based on their classification as procedural, rather than substantive. Although Bates involved the application of Florida's borrowing statute, section
95.10, we read the language in Bates to be applicable to any conflict of law question concerning a statute of limitation, including section
95.11, Florida Statutes (1993)....
...Because our holding conflicts with that of our sister court in Rodriguez v. Pacific Scientific Co ., we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: DOES THE SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP TEST ADOPTED IN BATES V. COOK,
509 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1987), FOR USE IN APPLYING FLORIDA'S BORROWING STATUTE, SECTION
95.10, FLORIDA STATUTES, ALSO APPLY TO CASES INVOLVING FLORIDA'S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, SECTION
95.11, FLORIDA STATUTES? We reverse the trial court's order dismissing the cause of action and certify the question stated above....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 25 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1888, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5745, 1997 WL 405929
...Florida, however, has a borrowing statute, which provides that "[w]hen the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained in this state." Fl. Stat. § 95.10....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
403 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (quoting Fla.Stat. §
95.10 (1975)). Article 13 of the Labor Law provides:
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 13880, 2005 WL 2105301
...t this action would be timely as to USAA. However, Florida's borrowing statute precludes the maintenance of a cause of action that arose in another state if the action is barred by the statute of limitations that applies to the action in that state. § 95.10, Fla....
...a, the trial court erred in determining that it will not be maintained in Florida. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment in USAA's favor and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] § 95.10, Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida
...Section 3-1004, Code and Laws of Georgia, provides as follows: "Injuries to the Person. Actions for injuries to the person shall be brought within two years after the right of action accrues, except for injuries to the reputation, which shall be brought within one year." Section 95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., reads as follows: "Limitation Upon Causes of Action Arising Out of the State....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3671, 1988 WL 19278
GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge: This court certified to the Florida Supreme Court the following question: For the purpose of applying Florida’s limitation of actions “borrowing” statute, Fla.Stat.Ann. § 95.10 (West 1982), is the determination whether a cause of action for theft of trade secrets has arisen in a state other than Florida to be made solely with reference to the state in which the “last act necessary to establish liability” occurred, Colhoun v....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 31 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1005
...We agree with the court's ruling concerning the negligence claim but disagree with the ruling regarding the claim alleging breach of implied warranty. Our holding is predicated upon our determination that the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code covered the implied warranty claim. Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1975) bars an action which is forbidden by the law of the state in which it arose....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 1430752
...Bates also involved a tort (theft of trade secrets), in which the significant relationship factors would not necessarily point to one state. The facts of our case are unlike those in Bishop and Bates. Applying Florida's borrowing statute yields the same result. Section 95.10, Florida Statutes (2001), provides that: When the cause of action arose in another state ......
...of limitations. The First District affirmed. Applying the same analysis as we have here, the First District found that the cause of action arose in Georgia. Thus, Florida's borrowing statute precluded the maintenance of the lawsuit. By enactment of section 95.10, our legislature has expressed a public policy of protecting Florida defendants from claims considered stale in the place where they arose....
...itations to permit a claim unless maintenance of the claim would serve no substantial interest of the forum and the claim is barred under the statute of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence. Section 95.10, which requires borrowing of a shorter statute of limitations, is Florida law barring the claim. Had the legislature intended for claims such as this one to be maintainable in this state, it would have repealed section 95.10, thus leaving the Florida courts with no option but to apply the longer Florida statute of limitations....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida
358 F.3d at 845 (internal citations omitted). Section
95.10, Florida Statutes, provides that "[w]hen the
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 10882
...Campo, instead, argues that Florida law should govern her claims. Florida regards statutes of limitation as matters of procedure, governed by the law of the forum state. However, foreign statutes of limitation are "borrowed" in certain situations. Specifically, section 95.10, Florida Statutes (1995) bars actions brought in Florida which would have been time-barred if brought at the same time in the jurisdiction where the cause of action arose....
...Cook,
509 So.2d 1112, 1113 (Fla.1987). Tafur claims that the cause of action for paternity and child support arose in Colombia upon the births of their children in 1981 and 1985, respectively. As such, he concludes that Colombian law should govern pursuant to section
95.10....
...ore, under Bates, supra, dismissal was improper. We agree that, under Bates, and as a matter of policy, Campo made sufficient allegations in the amended complaint to survive the motion to dismiss on the paternity and child support counts pursuant to section 95.10....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1618, 1999 WL 80351
...incorporation in states other than Florida. ANALYSIS I. Choice of Law Defendant claims that since the present incident occurred in Arizona, and involved someone's livestock, the law of the State of Arizona should apply. According to Florida Statute, Section 95.10 "when the cause of action arose in another state or territory of the United States, or in a foreign county, and its laws forbid the maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, no action shall be maintained." Further, Defendant maintains that following this rule, Arizona's rule of law should apply....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1327, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14850
in Florida. The trial court properly applied section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1983), and the relevant leading
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Dec 10, 2024
23-12979 §
95.10. As we have done before, we apply §
95.10 in this diversity
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16876
2d 99 (Fla.1984), insofar as it pertains to section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1981). Affirmed. GRIMES,
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1389, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8579
Florida. As I understand the “borrowing statute” [section
95.10, Florida Statutes (1979) ], we would only apply
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
of actions “borrowing statute,” Fla.Stat.Ann. §
95.10 (West 1982), to determine which state statute of
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2586
French Commercial Code pursuant to authority of section
95.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The essence of the
CopyPublished | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3993
Civil Practice Act is read in conjunction with Section
95.10, F.S.A. it clearly appears to this court that
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23158
...If Panama law applies, so does its one-year statute. If Florida law applies, its law holds that if the cause of action arises in a foreign country, and that country's laws forbid maintenance of the action because of lapse of time, the action is barred in Florida. Fla.Stat. § 95.10....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8708
maintained against him in this state. Fla.Stat. §
95.10, F.S.A. Finally, it should be pointed out that
